|
tweekinator posted:Right here ^ That isn't even about playing the game, that's about being a dick to the opponent for bothering to haul his army over, set up terrain, and unpack it just to get told you don't want to play the game via an elaborate farce.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
It is not every player's job in life to teach every opponent that the game they are both playing is a bad game that they should both stop playing, by forcing the opponent to recognize flaws in the game by exploiting those flaws to their maximum extent. In fact it's patently absurd, because if you are doing this you presumably already know the game is broken, so why did you agree to play? This is why it actually is at least partially the responsibility of the fucker-over to not gently caress over the fuckee: either you don't know that the game is broken, in which case, you can't have as a motive "teaching the other player a lesson that this game sucks," or you do know the game is broken, in which case, instead of wasting your and your opponents' time, you just stop playing the goddamn game. So the only scenario where this makes sense at all is when you don't know the game is broken. You're somehow exploiting the rules to the maximum extent trying to win, under a false assumption that your opponent has exactly the same option to break the game, and is going to make use of that option, thereby resulting in a challenging game for both of you. That might be the case. But it's not the case when your tactic is to end the game on turn one by using a broken tactic that you know will wipe out your entire opponent's army, or even just have a significant chance of doing so, with no recourse on their part. Your ignorance of the power and utility of the exploited mechanic is inversely proportional to your mastery of the game. If you are not a master of the game, you are not in a position to be teaching opponents that the game they're playing is irredeemably bad; if you are a master of the game, you already know the game is bad and once again shouldn't have agreed to this match in the first place. So now you're down to some rarified point where you have just enough mastery of the game to know to exploit some exploitable rule, but not enough mastery of the game to know that your exploitation of the rule is asymmetrical to your opponents ability to cope with it within the rules of the game. I don't think that condition exists very often and it certainly doesn't exist for long. Once you know the mechanic you're exploiting is an unequal advantage not available to your opponent, you should either A) suspect it's a broken mechanic and eschew it for the sake of a good challenging game, or B) suspect the game is broken and eschew playing it altogether, for the sake of playing some better game instead. And in this day and age with extensive free (if you have internet) resources analyzing every game of even modest popularity, there's really not much excuse for somehow maintaining this condition of exploiting-bad-mechanics-while-not-realizing-the-game-sucks for any significant length of time. Conclusion: if you come to the table knowing that your list is mega-powerful and there's not much your opponent can do, given the army he chose to play, you are being a shithead. Unless your opponent explicitly invited you to please give them a practical lesson in why this game you are both playing is a bad game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
S.J. posted:You call it a bad time but that's just shorthand for bringing the best stuff you can bring to win and using it the best you can. No, in this case I mean bringing an all deep striking motorcycle army or whatever busted poo poo you know is going to waste someone's afternoon. I play warmahordes, I get bringing the best stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It is not every player's job in life to teach every opponent that the game they are both playing is a bad game that they should both stop playing, by forcing the opponent to recognize flaws in the game by exploiting those flaws to their maximum extent. First of all, I didn't make that claim about teaching or say that anyone should be forcing anyone to recognize anything. Please stop that, you're being very disingenuous. I mean, look, there's something in particular that's implicit/explicit about wargames like these: you build an army, I build an army, we fight our mans and see what happens. What is explicitly frowned upon by pretty much everyone is the idea that for some reason you've taken to explaining in a very long form, and I wish you would have been more up front with it instead of beating around the bush, which is that the person is not handling the social part of the game correctly if they're attempting to tailor their list to their opponent. But, like, this entire discussion has been in the context of how to make your opponents life miserable in-game, i.e. mechanically, and list tailoring is explicitly not something that happens in-game, that is an entirely extra-game element that you can't expect people to account for, it's even outside of the context of meta-gaming. It's honestly one of the most obvious things you could do to bug someone because most people intrinsically understand that those kinds of things are outside of the realm of the game that everyone has agreed to. So please, dude, stop acting like someone claimed that those kinds of extra-game elements are acceptable, because I made it explicit that it's not. Hell, when BL first made his big reply even he made it explicitly clear that those kinds of extra-game elements like being rude to your opponent or whatever is not okay and he was not endorsing it and that it was outside the realm of what he was discussing. The discussion was not originally about that, and I've been trying to get it back onto the discussion about playing to win in the context of games themselves and people's, I believe, sometimes serious overreaction to that. But what you're describing is literally rude behavior outside of the mechanical realm of any of the games we're discussing, not aggressive tactics or efficient army building or trying to limit your opponents options or any of the other things that I've talked about and made explicitly clear that I was trying to discuss. From where I'm standing it looks like you're just shoving socially unacceptable behavior into the discussion and trying to couch it in mechanical language to try and get me to admit to a flaw in my statements. I don't want to think that's what you're doing but I really do feel like I've made it clear what I was trying to discuss. S.J. fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
You know a large chunk of the problem here as it stands for wargames is how both players can come to the table with vastly different options available to them before the match ever begins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Pureauthor posted:You know a large chunk of the problem here as it stands for wargames is how both players can come to the table with vastly different options available to them before the match ever begins. This was actually something I had wrote up a bit before changing my last post, but one of the most frequently awful parts of seeing people get stomped in 40k is something they literally don't have the time or money to avoid sometimes, which is that their opponent has a newer book than them and so almost gets to win by default, and the guy just doesn't have the money to change the list or faction that he bought or even buy into a better game without going through the hassle of maybe trying to sell the stuff he currently has. It really kills the hobby for people and I hate that 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Tailoring your list to beat your opponent is being good at games 101. The sign of a good meta in a game is for there to be good counter pick options available. That's the whole point of having varied options in your army, you don't pick guys with great weapons in Warhammer because they look cool, you pick them because the counter heavy armor. If you're playing WM/H and you know your opponent is bringing a heavy melee force, you should bring poo poo that can zone him and control his movement while you shoot him dead. This is why I think Malifaux is a good game, it's all about building your lists to counter strategies and balance that with achieving your own strategies in order to win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
El Estrago Bonito posted:Tailoring your list to beat your opponent is being good at games 101. The sign of a good meta in a game is for there to be good counter pick options available. That's the whole point of having varied options in your army, you don't pick guys with great weapons in Warhammer because they look cool, you pick them because the counter heavy armor. If you're playing WM/H and you know your opponent is bringing a heavy melee force, you should bring poo poo that can zone him and control his movement while you shoot him dead. Oh my god I explicitly talked about this and you already messed it up Like, I even said that list tailoring is different than metagaming Tailoring your list to fight what you expect to see in the meta is different than "if you come to the table knowing that your list is mega-powerful and there's not much your opponent can do, given the army he chose to play, you are being a shithead." I mean if Leper wasn't talking about list tailoring then he did a good job of making his argument sound pretty much exactly like it and it's my bad for posting past my bed time S.J. fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Oh my god I explicitly talked about this and you already messed it up That's what they said?  FWIW I dislike rock-paper-scissors list building. I don't mind variance, but if it's at a level where you've put down your guys and see your opponent's side of the table and go "Well this is going to be awful", you have a problem. The only fix I can think there is sideboards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
When I say list tailoring I mean building to your opponents specific list, not some generic threat within the game. Like, dropping all the heavy bolters in your list specifically because your opponent has little to no infantry. That's the kind of situation lepers post leads me to thinking of rather than some generically powerful list that beats whoever all the time in some fictitious scenario for some fictitious game so that we can justify calling someone names.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
spectralent posted:For god's sake, you're not "taking away fun". Your stuff dying is just an expected part of a wargame. You make it not fun by being a dick about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, how can we have this exact argument every 20 pages or so, and yet no one learns poo poo from it? Some people play wargames in order to exploit the rules to a maximum in order to create an optimal strategy to ensure they win. Some people just want to participate in the game, and have an enjoyable time doing so (the dreaded "fun"). Both of these are fully valid reasons to play the game. However, these two positions are almost always at odds, and when a "user all mechanics to win" player plays a "just here for fun" player, the former utterly destroys the latter and causes feelings of unfairness and resentment - because both players came into the game with different expectations of what the game was about. Assuming that people only play (or only should play) the game for the same reason you do is dumb as hell. Then some sociopath like BL comes along and says that the goal of any game is to make your opponent's life miserable and prevent him from meaningfully participating in the game (P.S. If the rules say you can punch him in the face you totally should), and illustrates perfectly why you should only play space barbies with close friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:the goal of any game is to make your opponent's life miserable and prevent him from meaningfully participating in the game (P.S. If the rules say you can punch him in the face you totally should), and illustrates perfectly why you should only play space barbies with close friends. e: Well, you are encouraged not to hug your opponent (preventing them from also punching you in the face) for the entirety of the match but with how corrupt boxing is, we see how well Mayweather uses that tactic. Chill la Chill fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
GAS THIS SHITHEAP
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
BAN BROKEN LOOSE
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Moola posted:BAN Moola posted:GAS
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
LITERALLY WORSE THAN 40K THREAD
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
1) Ban Broken Loose 2) Make Moola a TG mod 3) Post scrunts and skeletons
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Are you OK, Moola?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Moola will make traditional games great again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:Make Moola a TG mod
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Back when I played 40K I had a friend who would play an all-footslogger Guard army. If you brought a template-based army to just blow up all his guys, he'd get really mad and say its not fair that you're tailoring your army to beat his, you're a "win at all costs" player, etc. Of course, if his list somehow countered your list, he was a great thinker and won fairly and had a great time. I never won a game against him; if I brought anything even mildly competitive it would upset his fragile ego (I started bringing Ethereals as Tau in 5th edition; they're literally a giant army liability). Yes, he did read Bell of Lost Souls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:2) Make Moola a TG mod Moolds?!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Honestly, that's not your responsibility. That's wrong. Outside of a ~competitive environment~, it's everyone's responsibility to ensure they're not making life miserable for anyone else on a regular basis. quote:I don't think that you should have to put money into games that put you in that kind of situation. Teaching people the game is different, of course. When two people who know what the game is about sit down to play a competitive game, try to win. If trying to win results in games that the players find unenjoyable for them, just find a different game. Not ever game is made for every person, even though a lot of them are sold as such, or at the very least not everyone is always in the mood for particular types of games. Unnerfed Haley2. Unnerfed Denny2. Miserable Meat Mountain. All these things from noted good games developer Privateer Press resulted in a lot of unhappy people. There were, to use a popular term, "negative play experiences" for the opposition. Broken Loose is advocating that you should always play these things regardless of how lovely an experience it is for your opponent. We both know of people who quit playing Warmahordes over experiences like that, so let's not pretend it's just in "bad games" or "learning games". When I'm playing against my friends or with my regular group, I'm trying to win. But games are far from perfect and even good games can have things that are just frustrating or aggravating to play against - regardless of the ultimate result - and deliberately repeating these experiences because you're more likely to win is completely missing the point of why we play these loving things to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:
But then I won't be able to sass him
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Thirsty Dog posted:That's wrong. Outside of a ~competitive environment~, it's everyone's responsibility to ensure they're not making life miserable for anyone else on a regular basis. See, we're not disagreeing, because I was talking about playing the game competitiely. Wmh was, even at its mark 2 low points, still a game with quite a few options for play and counterplay and exploring that game space. It was not pure negative play experiences over and over again, though it had some real issues. It's also important that there's a difference between what you're saying here and what others have been poorly trying to say, which is that it's not okay to use games as a vehicle to personally attack your opponent. That's obviously not okay. But even in mk2 going back to MMM and or Haley 2 every game didn't make you a jerk. Wanting to engage with the gameplay part of that game also means finding people who are okay with what that means. The meta was just in a really blech state where there were established lists that could perform well and people weren't going to give you poo poo for sticking to good options. You could still build lists 'for fun' that were honest attempts at playing well and performing well because of how fine a line there is between good and bad options, generally speaking. Chill la Chill posted:You are lucky if you have never encountered a manchild who gets salty about this. Having been organizing and running things for a while I can tell you from experience that this is far more likely than any attempted argument in the last few pages. S.J. fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Why It's Not Cool to Hate the ‘Star Wars’ Prequels Anymore
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
The gently caress is this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Agreed
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
I would watch a space Ben-Hur (with the podracing scene as the chariot scene, because that's what it was).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Oh for gently caress's sake. Perhaps the bad movies.... weren't bad? Everyone says they hated the movies but actually perhaps... the truth is somewhere in the middle? OK yes, when Phantom first came out, reviews were mixed and some people didn't really hate it. That's not surprising at all, because Phantom, on its own, still left open a lot of possibilities for the trilogy. Possibilities that were systematically discarded in favor of really stupid and bad poo poo as the trilogy went on. Also the darth maul acrobatic light saber fight felt refreshing and dynamic and new, it was like hey, here's a guy with a very different fighting style! Gosh! Except then it turned out everyone fights like that or whatever, making it not cool and different but just bad. Also we didn't know at that point that Amidala was supposed to fall in love with a smarmy child half her age, that Yoda was going to whip out a tiny light saber, or that Hayden Christiensen existed. Nevertheless, it had vaguely racist and super annoying Jar Jar Binks, inserting slapstick into every scene, it had regretabbly terrible child actor Jake Lloyd, it had racist space-trade federation characatures, it wasted tons of time on pointless and weirdly simplified space senatorial politics, it had big fish eaten by bigger fish eaten by still bigger fish while driving through the "center of the earth" made of water??? And all manner of other terrible garbage, crammed together with poor filmmaking technique, poor editing, poor pacing, and... of course... destroying the big space station by flying into it with a space ship and blowing it up. Except somehow mostly by accident as some annoying kid unconvincingly says "woops." Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
guys please don't bully star wars movi-*FAAARRRRRRRRRTTTT* Nuke this thread, it's way past its expiration date imho. Also make Moola into the mod we deserve edit: the old death thread was better because when there were idiotic derails the OP posted the John Galt speech and/or closed it because he thought it would be funny Soulfucker fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Star Wars is bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Are you OK, Moola? I am angered by terrible posts so as you can imagine, I am in a constant state of anger
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
A Bad Critic posted:In the Chronicle of Higher Education in 2012, Camille Paglia declared George Lucas “the greatest artist of our time,” and specifically cited the final duel between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker in Revenge of the Sith as proof, writing “As in Dante, there is an allegorical level: “I have the high ground,” declares Obi-Wan when he springs to the top of a black sandy slope. Hell, as in Marlowe, Milton, and Blake, is a psychological state—Anakin’s self-destructive surrender to possessive love and jealous hate.”  Is this seriously what academic critics are up to nowadays?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:Star Wars is bad. actually it's good
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:Star Wars is bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Why the hell is this thread talking about Star Wars when this has been posted?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
those are good but we've seen them before
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:14
|
|